' MALIK ZAWWAR HUSSAIN (MEMBER).-This appeal filed on 8th March, 1981 is directed against the adverse remarks recorded by the Superintendent of Police, Gujranwala, in the Annual Confidential Report for the period from 20th August, 1977 to 31st December, 1977 which were conveyed to the appellant vide Memo. Dated 27th September, 1978 by the D.I.-G. Police. The appellant filed a representation on 24th February 1980 to the D.I.-G. Police for the expunction of the adverse remarks which was rejected by him vide order dated 28th April, 1980. The appellant has prayed that the order of D.I.-G. Police be set aside and the adverse remarks communicated to him be expunged.
2. We have heard the parties and have also perused the record. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that the adverse remarks only covered a period of 4 months and 11 days apparently but in fact the appellant had not worked under the Reporting Officer for the minimum period of 3 months as laid down in para. 6 of the Revised Police Standing Order No,
32. TO substantiate his Gujranwala from 9th November, 1977 to 31st December, 1977 (1 month and 22 days) which period is also liable to be deducted from the period in view of para. 6 of L-G. Police Standing Order No,
32. He has further submitted that this is the solitary adverse report on the record of the muted that the appellant has been posted in the District Police Lines, by the respondents wherein it has been admitted that the appellant duty with effect from 6th August, 1977 to 3rd October, 1977, which comes to 1 month and 27th days, which period if excluded from the period under report then the period for which the appellant had worked under the under report. Thus concluding this point it has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that the adverse remarks are liable to be ignored Reporting Officer would be less than 3 months. He has further sub-remained posted at Chief Martial Law Administrator's House on special arguments he has placed reliance on the parawise comments offered , appellant otherwise all his previous and subsequent reports have been categorized as 'Good' and the impugned remarks are mala fide. On the facts it has been argued that the remarks are not justified. To substantiate it he has filed a copy of the Enquiry Report conducted by Ghulam Sarwar Cheema, Deputy Superintendent of Police, against him on the allegations of receiving illegal gratification from different persons which Report was accepted by the Superintendent of Police Headquarters, Lahore vide order dated 30th April 1981 thus exonerating him from the charges of corruption, etc. On the other hand it has been argued on behalf of the respondents that the mere fact that the appellant was posted at the residence of C.M.L.A. And his posting at Police Lines does not take "-- him out of the administrative control of the Reporting Officer who was fully justified to comment upon the work and conduct of the appellant for the entire period from 20th August, 1977 to 31st December, 1977. It has also been argued that the appeal is time-barred for the reason that the adverse remarks were communicated to the appellant vide order dated 27th September, 1978 while the appellant filed representation against them on 24th February, 1980 after a period of more than 1 year and 5 months. Since the representation before the Departmental Authority was time-barred, hence the present appeal is also deemed to be time- barred and not maintainable. On merits it has been submitted that the Enquiry Report so relied upon by the appellant does not relate to the conduct of the appellant vis-a-vis his failure to report to Police Lines and the comments regarding his work and conduct rated as 'Below Average.' At the worst it has been argued, although not conceded, that the remarks regarding integrity can be expunged if the report of the Enquiry Officer is taken into consideration.
3. We have anxiously considered the arguments of the parties and have also gone through the record. We have gone through a teleprinter message No, 19314-21/77, elated 10th August, 1977 issued by Senior Superintendent (Secret) on behalf of the Inspeetoe-General of Police Punjab, Lahore, whereby a number of Police Officers including the appellant were detailed to report to Superintendent of Police, Special Branch, Rawalpindi, ford employment in C.M.L A.'s House by 15th August, 1977. According to the provisions of the Standing Order No, 32 and Appendix VIII appended to it the report of a Sub-Inspector of Police is to be initiated by the Superintendent of Police which means the Superintendent of Police concerned. Since the appellant admittedly remained posted under the control of Superintendent of Police, Special Branch, Rawalpindi, from 6th August, 1977 to 3rd October, 1977 so only he was the Superintendent of Police concerned. If this period is deducted from the period under report then the period for writing the Confidential Report would come to less than 3 months. As such, it would be hit by para. 6 of Standing Order No, 32 It is also laid down that the minimum period during which an officer is expected to form a judicious opinion about the work of his subordinate for the purpose of writing Confidential Report on his work and conduct is 3 months. It has been further provided that the report recorded in respect of the period less than the minimum prescribed period should be ignored. In this view of the matter the adverse remarks are liable to be ignored. We are not impressed by the argument of the appellant that the period during which he remained posted in the District Police Lines will also be liable to be excluded from the tenure of his posting at Gujranwala under the administrative control of the Superintendent of Police for the reason that he remained under the administrative control of the Superintendent of Police, Gujranwala, during that period. Regarding the objection of limitation raised on behalf of the respondents, suffice it to say that when the adverse remarks are without jurisdiction so it will be in the interest of justice that the delay if any be condoned which we hereby condone.
4. In view of the above discussion we accept the appeal, set aside the impugned older of the D.I.-G.
Police dated 24th February, 1980 and expunge the adverse remarks recorded by the Superintendent of Police, Gujranwala, for the period from 5th October, 1977 to 26th December, 1977 conveyed to him by D.I.-G. Police vide Memo. Dated 27th September, 1979. There will, however, be no order as to the costs. Appeal accepted.
1981 PLC (C. S.) 852 [Service Tribunal Punjab] Persent : S. Abdul Jabbar Khan, Chairman, S. Hafeez-ur-Rehman and Malik Zawwar Hussain, Members MUHAMMAD SALEEM KHAN versus SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GUJRANWALA AND ANOTHER Case No, 193/780 of 1980, decided on 15th September, 1981.
Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)- -- S. 4-Adverse remarks in Annual Report-Appeal against-Plea of malice without any proof and merely by statement of appellant-Tribunal after perusal of record coming to conclusion that impugned remarks were based upon nothing but facts and merit-- . [p. 854jA & B Abdul Qayyum for Appellant, H. R. Cheema, District Attorney for Respondents.
' S. ABDUL JABBAR kHA/4 (CHAIRMAPI).--=-Mr. Gilani ex-S.I. Of Police Security Branch, Gujranwala, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, for expunction of adverse remarks recorded in his ACR for the year 1976. By victue of this appeal he has prayed that these remarks recorded by Mr. Jehanzeb Burki, the then S.P., Gujranwala, be expunged.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant joined initially as A.S.I. On 1st January, 1960 and was promoted to the rank of S.I. Of Police on 13th May, 1971, and was confirmed as such w,e,f, 4th April, 1977. Mr. Jehanzeb Burki the then S. P. Gujranwala recorded the following adverse remarks in the A.
C. Rs, of the appellant for the year 1976
(a) Rating as an S.H.O. If so appointed-Below average.
(b) Readiness to accept responsibility-Below average.
(c) Readiness to expose subordinates.-Below average.
(d) Class of report-Below average 'C'.
(e) General Remarks. -A fat and unimpressive Police Officer who failed to control the smallest rural Police Station in Gujranwala district as an S.H.O. Was found to be letharic and irresponsible.
' These remarks were communicated to the appellant on 27th June, 1978 against which the appellant submitted a representation to the D.I.-G. Police. The said D.I.-G. Police rejected his representation vide order dated 27th February, 1980.
3. We have beard the learned connsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the respondent assisted by a Representative of the Department and have perused the record of the case carefully with their assistance. The learned counsel for the appellant while arguing the case submitted that this was due to act of malice of the said S.P. Who had relied on an incident which occurred on 19th January, 1975 between the S. P. And the appellant. According to the learned counsel the dead body of a student was found by the police and the investigations made in the matter could not satisfy the students community of Gujranwala and which resulted in taking out of a big procession by them on 6th February, 1975 to demonstrate their resentment against the local Police. The appellant brought this fact to the notice of the said S.P. Who directed him to keep silent.
The appellant refused to do so as he thought that it was his duty to bring this matter to the notice of higher authorities. This according to the appellant's counsel caused annoyance to the S.P.
Concerned who gave adverse entry in the ACR of the appellant and this exposed his consumption in the other their (?). The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant in no manner deserved these remarks as his record of service was always unblemished. On the other hand, the learned District Attorney has stoutly resisted both the claims so made and has submitted that it is very easy to make allegation of malice against any person howsoever high he may be but unless and until the same is proved it can be nothing but a wild allegation hardly worth consideration. According to the learned District Attorney there is nothing on the record to show that this incident ever took place between the appellant and the Reporting Officer or the reporting authority in any manner nurtured any grudge against him. With regard to his performance it has been submitted by the respondent through the learned District Attorney that the Reporting Officer is fully justified to his opinion with reference to the performance of the appellant while he was posted under him which according to the Reporting Officer was below average from all angles and the charge of being bulky and lethargic was evident from the person who himself appeared before this Court a number of time, he has prayed that the appeal be dismissed as without any merit.
3. We have taken care of all the arguments so advanced before us and have perused the record of this case as well as personal file of the appellant and find ample justification for the Reporting Officer to make assessm ent of his performance. We are also of the considered Opinion that there is nothing on record to show that S. P. (Reporting Officer) was in any way inimical towards the appellant or that the adverse entry so made by him in his ACR was not based on facts or merits.
4. In view of the above we see no reason to expunge the assessment so made by the Reporting Officer in the shape of adverse entry in the ACR of the appellant and therefore, dismiss the appeal as being without " any substance.